Abstract
This chapter establishes the theoretical background in which the forthcoming analysis is couched. In particular, it adopt the tenets of Bare Phrase Structure, Antisymmetry and Dynamic Antisymmetry. Each of these proposals is spelled out in detail in this chapter. Also included is a discussion on the elimination of head movement from UG and a brief mention of alternative theories of linearization.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Nakajima offers such an approach, which we argue against later. The current proposal does offer a strongly derivational approach to linearization.
- 2.
Wojdak (2008), in fact, does propose a derivational approach to word order assuming an updated version of the Headedness Parameter . Again, however, such an approach suffers from many of the same problems as the traditional Headedness Parameter as described in this section, including over-generation.
- 3.
The exact formulation of the Universal Base Hypothesis (Bach 1968) is still a matter of debate (Zwart 1997; Broekhuis 2006). On the basis of the prevalence of SVO and SOV patterns cross-linguistically, it comes as no surprise that the two contenders for this hypothesis are the S-H-C order (Kayne 1994, inter alia) and S-C-H order (Fukui and Takano 1998, inter alia). Still, others have proposed that the directionality parameter specifies only the order between the head and the complement, with the specifier universally on the left (Oishi 2003; Ernst 2003; Richards 2008). We address these issues at the end of this chapter.
- 4.
- 5.
Citko (2005) argues for parallel merge, which is counter-cyclic, however. See also Richards (1998) on tucking in. Furthermore, one could argue that the null hypothesis is not to restrict Merge to operate over only the root node in absence of evidence to the contrary. See Citko and Richards cited above, as well as Chomsky (2008).
- 6.
For consistency throughout, when lexical items are represented by Roman letters, I use standard font for labels and italic font for the actual lexical items.
- 7.
Not discussed here are two other proposals for adjunction structures. The first is Rubin (2003), who proposes a Mod(ifier)P shell to host adjunction. He proposes that it is a property of ModP that properties of the pre-existing structure (c-command, etc.) do not change. The other proposal is that of Safir (1999), who proposes that anti-reconstruction effects in adjunction structure are due to vehicle change, thus eliminating the need for any special structural apparatus for adjuncts.
- 8.
Notwithstanding to this are situations in which a DP is coreferential with a null element, thus giving the illusion that movement has taken place when none really has. Examples include PRO in traditional analyses of control and operators in some kinds of relative clauses.
- 9.
Nunes’ (2004) conception of Move actually consists of a composite of four operations: Copy + Merge + Form Chain + Chain Reduction.
- 10.
Guimarães (2008) shows that some constructions with multiple specifiers are actually compliant with the LCA. This is true only if one of the specifiers is a head and if there is no higher head that selects the XP with multiple specifiers as a complement. Since multiple specifiers are permitted in Dynamic Antisymmetry (as long as any point of symmetry that is formed is subsequently removed), I will not concern myself with the wrinkles Guimarães raises for strict versions of Antisymmetry.
- 11.
Note that E is in a symmetric c-command relation with both AP and DP since E, AP and DP are all dominated by the same set of maximal projections (only EP), but that E asymmetrically c-commands both A and D. Thus, e can be ordered with respect to a and d. The crucial point here is that there is no way that a and d can be ordered with respect to each other.
- 12.
Note that the DP in 17 does not have a head. The inadmissibility of this kind of structure can be used to derive endocentricity. Thus, just as Kayne removes X’-Theory as a primitive from UG, deriving it instead from the LCA , endocentricity can also be removed as a primitive from UG. See Moro (2000), however, who uses the point of symmetry in the structure in 17 for small clauses. See Guimarães (2008) for related discussion, though.
- 13.
Chomsky (1995b: 337) actually suggested this in a brief discussion of Romance clitics.
- 14.
- 15.
Moro acknowledges that it may be difficult or even impossible to treat all cases of movement as the resolution of symmetrical constructions. He admits that other possible triggers for movement such as checking Case in passives or EPP may have to be admitted in UG.
- 16.
For a general discussion of head movement, see Roberts (2001).
- 17.
Massam (2000b) proposes that VOS word order in Niuean arises when the VP moves to satisfy EPP in SpecTP. Thus we see here an example of a strong [V-] feature being satisfied by XP-movement. Other examples include Oda (2003; 2005) who proposes a VP-raising analysis to account for certain word order facts in Irish, and Aboh (2004) also discusses cases of VP movement and N movement.
- 18.
See Harley (2004) for discussion of this point.
- 19.
- 20.
Jackendoff (1977) actually notes that specifiers, but not complements can be heads, but for different reasons than we are assuming here. Jackendoff’s statement was made under much older assumptions where what are now treated as functional heads were thought to occupy specifier positions (e.g., determiners). Cinque (1996) notes that a bare head cannot appear in specifier position within an Antisymmetric framework. I will return to this point in Section 2.5.2 below and in Chapter 3.
- 21.
Dobrovie-Sorin (1994), for instance, argues that pronominal clitics in Romanian raise to SpecIP, rather than to I, a move made possible due to the fact that clitics, following Chomsky (1995b), are both maximal and minimal projections. Bošković (2002) also argues that clitics are heads that occupy the specifier of a functional projection. Romance clitics are touched on very briefly in Chapter 2.
- 22.
Or, as Elizabeth Cowper has pointed out to me, an analysis in which no movement takes place can be pursued; that is ‘moved’ heads are initially merged in the higher position rather than raised there from a lower position.
- 23.
…at least as far as syntactic analyses are concerned. There are, of course, many analyses of NI which treat this phenomenon as lexical rather than syntactic. We address this issue more at the beginning of Chapter 3.
- 24.
It is not clear, of course, that Binding is evaluated purely at LF. Most recently, Lebeaux (2009) demonstrates that Principle C, for instance, applies throughout the derivation and not just at LF. Thus, narrow syntax must be able to refer to c-command relations.
- 25.
It is likely that pronouns of the English type as shown are actually DPs or ϕPs (Rose Marie Déchaine and Martina Wiltschko 2002). Nevertheless, there are assumedly indisputable cases where two heads with lexical material c-command each other. The same issue arises with Nakajima’s proposal below.
- 26.
To see how this is so, recall that Kayne’s definition of c-command refers to segments of a maximal projection. X c-commands Z because every category that dominates X (namely XP) also dominates Z. Note that YP does not dominate Z since not all segments of YP dominates Z. Thus, Z c-commands X because every category that dominates Z (only XP) also dominates X.
- 27.
40 is also problematic for a traditional Antisymmetric approach, of course. The point here is that Richards’ approach does not completely solve the problem of symmetric c-command that BPS introduces.
- 28.
This is not quite accurate. Under Uriagereka’s (1999) approach, no point of symmetry arises between a head and a full XP complement. This approach is discussed in full detail in Chapter 3.
References
Aboh, Enoch. 2004. “Snowballing Movement and Generalized Pied-Piping.” In Triggers, edited by Anne Breitbarth, and Henk Van Riemsdijk, 15–48. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
Aldridge, Edith. 2003. “Remnant Movement in Tagalog Relative Clause Formation.” Linguistic Inquiry 34 (4):631–40.
Ambar, Manuela, and Jean-Yves Pollock. 2002. “Topic vs. Comment in Some Subject Inversion Sentences in French and Portuguese.” Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 1 (1):119–38.
Aoun, Joseph, and Dominique Sportiche. 1983. “On the Formal Theory of Government.” The Linguistic Review 2:211–36.
Baauw, Sergio. 1998. “Subject-Verb Inversion in Spanish: Movement as Symmetry Breaker.” Linguistics in the Netherlands 15:1–12.
Bach, Emmon. 1968. “Nouns and Noun Phrases.” In Universals in Linguistic Theory, edited by Robert T. Harms Emmon Bach, 91–124. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Baker, Mark C. 1985. “The Mirror Principle and Morphosyntactic Explanation.” Linguistic Inquiry 16 (3):373–416.
Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Baltin, Mark. 2001. “Movement to the Higher V is Remnant Movement.” Linguistic Inquiry 33 (4):653–59.
Bobaljik, Jonathan, and Jason Brown. 1997. “Interarborial Operations: Head Movement and the Extension Requirement.” Linguistic Inquiry 28 (2):345–56.
Boeckx, Cedric, and Sandra Stjepanović. 2001. “Head-ing Toward PF.” Linguistic Inquiry 32 (2):345–55.
Bošković, Željko. 2002. “Clitics as Nonbranching Elements and the Linear Correspondence Axiom.” Linguistic Inquiry 33 (2):329–40.
Broekhuis, Hans. 2006. “The Universal Base Hypothesis: VO or OV?” In Linguistics in the Netherlands 2006, edited by Jeroen van de Weijer, and Battelou Los, 28–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Caballero, Gabriela, Michael J. Houser, Nicole Marcus, Teresa McFarland, Anne Phycha, Maziar Toosarvandani, Suzanne Wilhite, and Johanna Nichols. 2008. “Nonsyntactic Ordering Effects in Syntactic Noun Incorporation.” Linguistic Typology 12 (3):383–421.
Carstens, Vicki. 2002. “Antisymmetry and Word Order in Serial Constructions.” Language 78 (1):3–50.
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. Janua Linguarum. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. “Remarks on Nominalization.” In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, edited by Roderick Jacobs, and Peter Rosenbaum, 184–221. Washington DC: Georgetown UP.
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. “A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory.” In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, edited by Ken Hale, and Samuel J. Keyser, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1994. Bare Phrase Structure. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MITWPL.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995a. “Bare Phrase Structure.” In Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program: Principles and Parameters in Syntactic Theory, edited by Gert Webelhuth, 383–439. Generative Syntax. Oxford; 1. Oxford: Blackwell.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995b. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. “Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework.” In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, edited by Roger Martin, D. Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–156. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. “Derivation by Phase.” In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, edited by Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2004. “Beyond Explanatory Adequacy.” In The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 3, Structures and Beyond, edited by Adriana Belletti. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. “On Phases.” In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory, edited by P. Oltero, 133–66. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1996. “The ‘Antisymmetric’ Programme: Theoretical and Typological Implications.” Journal of Linguistics 32 (2):447–64.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Citko, Barbara. 2005. “On the Nature of Merge: External Merge, Internal Merge, and Parallel Merge.” Linguistic Inquiry 36 (4):475–96.
Cummings, Constance. 2002. “XP (Remnant) Movement and Verb Serialization in Yoruba.” PhD diss., New York University.
Déchaine, Rose Marie, and Martina Wiltschko. 2002. “Decomposing Pronouns.” Linguistic Inquiry 33 (3):409–42.
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 1994. The Syntax of Romanian. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
Epstein, Samuel, Erich Groat, Ruriko Kawashima, and Hisatsugo Kitahara. 1998. A Derivational Approach to Syntactic Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ernst, Thomas. 2003. “Adjuncts and Word Order Asymmetries.” In Asymmetry in Grammar: Volume I: Syntax and Semantics, edited by Anna Maria di Sciullo, 187–208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fanselow, Gisbert. 2003. “Münchhausen-Style Head Movement and the Analysis of Verb Second.” UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 13:40–76.
Frank, Robert, and K. Vijay-Shanker. 2001. “Primitive C-Command.” Syntax 4 (3):164–204.
Fukui, Naoki, and Yuji Takano. 1998. “Symmetry in Syntax: Merge and Demerge.” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7:27–68.
Greenberg, Joseph. 1963. Universals of Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Guasti, Maria-Teresa, and Andrea Moro. 2001. “Romance Causatives and Dynamic Antisymmetry: Essays Offered to Lorenzo Renzi.” In Current Studies in Italian Syntax, edited by Guglielmo Cinque, and Giampaolo Salvi, 173–88. Amsterdam: North Holland.
Guimarães, Maximiliano. 2008. “A Note on the Strong Generative Capacity of Standard Antisymmetry Theory.” Snippets 18:5–7.
Haegeman, Liliane. 2000. “Remnant Movement and OV Order.” In The Derivation of VO and OV, edited by Peter Svenonius, 69–96. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Haegeman, Liliane. 2001. Antisymmetry and Verb-Final Order in West Flemish. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 3 (3):207–32.
Harley, Heidi. 2004. “Merge, Conflation and Head Movement: The First Sister Principle Revisited” In NELS 34, edited by Keir Moulton, and Matthew Wolf, 239–54. Amherst, MA: GLSA.
Hornstein, Norbert, and Jairo Nunes. 2008. “Adjunction, Labelling, and Bare Phrase Structure.” Biolinguistics 2 (1):57–86.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1977. X-bar Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Julien, Marit. 2002. Syntactic Heads and Word Formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kandybowicz, Jason, and Mark C. Baker. 2003. “On Directionality and the Structure of the Verb Phrase: Evidence from Nupe.” Syntax 6 (2):115–55.
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kayne, Richard. 2003a. “Antisymmetry and Japanese.” English Linguistics 20:1–40.
Kayne, Richard. 2003b. “Antisymmetry, Adpositions and Remnant Movement.” Paper presented at the workshop on Antisymmetry and Remnant Movement, New York University, October 31 – November 1, 2003.
Kayne, Richard. 2009. “Why is Syntax Antisymmetric.” Paper presented at the Theoretical Approaches to Disharmonic Word Orders, Newcastle University, New Castle, DE.
Kayne, Richard. 2010. “Why Are There No Directionality Parameters?” Paper presented at the WCCFL 28, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Koncar, Katarina. 2005. “Living on the edge: Wh-movement in Serbo-Croatian.” MA Thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.
Koopman, Hilda, and Anna Szabolcsi. 2000. Verbal Complexes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kroch, Anthony. 2001. “Syntactic Change.” In The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, edited by Mark Baltin, and Chris Collins, 699–729. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Lebeaux, David. 1988. “Language Acquisition and the Form of the Grammar.” PhD diss., University of Massachusetts, Amhers, MA.
Lebeaux, David. 1991. “Relative Clauses, Licensing and the Nature of the Derivation.” In Syntax and Semantics 25: Perspective on Phrase Structure: Heads and Licensing, edited by Susan Rothstein, 209–39. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Lebeaux, David. 2009. Where Does Binding Theory Apply? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lee, Felicia Ann. 2000. “Antisymmetry and the Syntax of San Lucas Quiavini Zapotec.” PhD diss., University of California, Los Angeles.
Mahajan, Anoop. 2003. “Word Order and (Remnant) VP Movement.” In Word Order and Scrambling, edited by Simin Karimi, 217–37. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Massam, Diane. 2000. “VSO and VOS: Aspects of Niuean Word Order.” In The Syntax of Verb Initial Languages, edited by Andrew Carnie, and Eithne Guilfoyle, 97–116. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Matushansky, Ora. 2006. “Head Movement in Linguistic Theory.” Linguistic Inquiry 37 (1):69–109. doi:10.1162/002438906775321184%U http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/002438906775321184.
Mithun, Marianne. 1984. “The Evolution of Noun Incorporation.” Language 60 (4):847–94.
Moro, Andrea. 2000. Dynamic Antisymmetry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Moro, Andrea. 2004. “Linear Compression as a Trigger for Movement.” In Triggers, edited by Anne Breitbarth, and Henk van Riemsdijk, 387–430. Berlin, New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
Moro, Andrea. 2009. “Rethinking Symmetry: A Note on Labelling and the EPP.” Snippets 19:17–8.
Müller, Gereon. 1996. “A Constraint on Remnant Movement.” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 14 (2):355–407.
Müller, Gereon. 1997. “Extraposition as Remnant Movement.” In Rightward Movement, edited by Dorothee Deerman, David LeBlanc, and Henk van Riemsdijk, 215–46. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing.
Müller, Gereon. 2004. “Verb-Second as vP-First.” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 7 (3):179–234.
Nakajima, Takashi. 1999. “Word Order in the Minimalist Program: A Derivational Approach.” PhD diss., Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Oda, Kenji. 2003. “Irish as a VP Fronting Language.” In Proceedings of Canadian Linguistic Association 2002. Université de Montréal à Québec.
Oda, Kenji. 2005. “V1 and Wh-questions: A typology.” In Verb First: On the Syntax of Verb-Initial Languages, edited by Andrew Carnie, Heidi Harley, and Sheila Ann Dooley, 107–33. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Oishi, Masayuki. 2003. “When Linearity Meets Bare Phrase Structure.” Current Issues in English Linguistics 2:18–41.
Phillips, Colin. 2003. “Linear Order and Constituency.” Linguistic Inquiry 34 (1):37–90.
Richards, Marc D. 2007. “On Feature Inheritance: An Argument from the Phase Impenetrability Condition.” Linguistic Inquiry 38 (3):563–72.
Richards, Marc D. 2008. “Desymmetrization: Parametric Variation at the PF Interface.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics 53 (2/3):275–300.
Richards, Norvin. 1998. “The Principle of Minimal Compliance.” Linguistic Inquiry 29 (4):599–629.
Roberts, Ian. 2001. “Head Movement.” In The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory edited by Mark Baltin, and Chris Collins, 113–47 Oxford: Blackwell.
Rubin, Edward J. 2003. “Determining Pair-Merge.” Linguistic Inquiry 34 (4):660–68.
Sadock, Jerrold. 1980. “Noun Incorporation in Greenlandic: A Case of Syntactic Word Formation.” Language 56 (2):300–19.
Safir, Ken. 1999. “Vehicle Change and Reconstruction in A Chains.” Linguistic Inquiry 30 (4):587–620.
Speas, Margaret. 1990. Phrase Structure in Natural Language. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Stepanov, Arthur. 2001. “Cyclic Domains in Syntactic Theory.” PhD diss., University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.
Stowell, Tim. 1981. “Origins of Phrase Structure.” PhD diss., MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Takano, Yuji. 2000. “Illicit Remnant Movement: An Argument for Feature-Driven Movement.” Linguistic Inquiry 31 (1):141–56.
Toyoshima, Takashi. 2000. “Head-To-Spec Movement and Dynamic Economy.” PhD diss., Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Travis, Lisa de Mena. 1989. “Parameters of Phrase Structure.” In Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure, edited by Mark Baltin, and Anthony Kroch, 263–79. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Uriagereka, Juan. 1999. “Multiple Spell Out.” In Working Minimalism, edited by Samuel Epstein, and Norbert Hornstein, 251–82. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
van Geenhoven, Veerle. 1998. Semantic Incorporation and Indefinite Descriptions: Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Noun Incorporation in West Greenlandic. Dissertations in Linguistics. (DiLi). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Wojdak, Rachel. 2008. The Linearization of Affixes: Evidence from Nuu-Chah-Nulth. New York, NY/Berlin: Springer.
Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter. 1997. “The Germanic SOV Languages and the Universal Base Hypothesis.” In The New Comparative Syntax, edited by Liliane Haegeman, 246–67. London, New York: Longman Linguistics Library.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Barrie, M. (2011). Theoretical Background. In: Dynamic Antisymmetry and the Syntax of Noun Incorporation. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, vol 84. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1570-7_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1570-7_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-1569-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-1570-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)